[115515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: tor
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Thu Jun 25 00:28:58 2009
In-Reply-To: <20090625041420.GK1012@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:58:11 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an
>> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by
>> simply running a TOR exit node.
>
> Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definition
> of "common carrier" is these days, running a TOR node, still be covered by
> said provisions?
ISPs are not common carriers. Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy
who explains it best.
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
